Cited by 295Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening

Early Detection of Sporadic Pancreatic Cancer: Summative Review

Open access
Chari, Suresh T., Kelly, Kimberly, Hollingsworth, Michael A., Thayer, Sarah P., Ahlquist, David A., Andersen, Dana K., Batra, Surinder K., Brentnall, Teresa A. +19 more·2015·Pancreas

Abstract

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is estimated to become the second leading cause of cancer death in the United States by 2020. Early detection is the key to improving survival in PC. Addressing this urgent need, the Kenner Family Research Fund conducted the inaugural Early Detection of Sporadic Pancreatic Cancer Summit Conference in 2014 in conjunction with the 45th Anniversary Meeting of the American Pancreatic Association and Japan Pancreas Society. This seminal convening of international representatives from science, practice, and clinical research was designed to facilitate challenging interdisciplinary conversations to generate innovative ideas leading to the creation of a defined collaborative strategic pathway for the future of the field. An in-depth summary of current efforts in the field, analysis of gaps in specific areas of expertise, and challenges that exist in early detection is presented within distinct areas of inquiry: Case for Early Detection: Definitions, Detection, Survival, and Challenges; Biomarkers for Early Detection; Imaging; and Collaborative Studies. In addition, an overview of efforts in familial PC is presented in an addendum to this article. It is clear from the summit deliberations that only strategically designed collaboration among investigators, institutions, and funders will lead to significant progress in early detection of sporadic PC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/mpa.0000000000000368

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • If the stage distribution could be reversed to 50% localized and 10% metastatic, survival would be more than doubled without any additional improvements in therapy.

    “If the stage distribution could be reversed, to 50% localized and 10% metastatic, survival would be more than doubled without any additional improvements in therapy.3”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    In “Survival in Pancreatic Cancer” (page unavailable), the paper models stage distributions that could double average 5-year survival using 2004–2010 SEER outcomes. Our copy does not give the table’s numerical distributions, so it cannot verify the specific 50% localized and 10% metastatic scenario or that survival would be more than doubled. The model uses outcomes under interventions available in 2004–2010, rather than assuming an additional treatment improvement. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The currently used blood-based biomarker, CA 19-9, accurately predicts only 65% of those with early disease when surgical treatment is a viable option.

    “and the currently used blood-based biomarker, CA 19-9, accurately predicts only 65% of those with early disease when surgical treatment is a viable option.3,167”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Early Detection of Pancreatic Cancer: 2020 Summative Review (2021) · cites this paper as [3]

    The Biomarkers for Early Detection overview identifies CA-19-9 as the only test in routine clinical use, but says it is used for therapeutic management, not diagnosis. The “Early PC Lacks Biomarkers” section reports 80.3% sensitivity across pancreatic-cancer patients and controls; it does not establish the claimed 65% figure for early, surgically treatable disease. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Screening in the asymptomatic population is not recommended due to the economic burden and the relatively low incidence of PC in the general population.

    “However, screening in the asymptomatic population is not recommended due to the economic burden and the relatively low incidence of PC in the general population 21,22.”

    From Artificial intelligence in pancreatic cancer (2022) · cites this paper as [22]

  • Early symptoms of PDAC are mostly nonspecific.

    “Early symptoms of the disease are mostly nonspecific.”
  • The size of the lesion at the time of surgery is a predictor of long-term survival.

    “Furthermore, the size of the lesion at the time of surgery is a predictor of long-term survival.3,166,167”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. References are available online at: http://links.lww.com/MPA/A374.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chari, S. T., Kelly, K., Hollingsworth, M. A., Thayer, S. P., Ahlquist, D. A., Andersen, D. K., Batra, S. K., Brentnall, T. A., Canto, M., Cleeter, D. F., Firpo, M. A., Gambhir, S. S., Go, V. L. W., Hines, O. J., Kenner, B. J., Klimstra, D. S., Lerch, M. M., Levy, M. J., Maitra, A., Mulvihill, S. J., Petersen, G. M., Rhim, A. D., Simeone, D. M., Srivastava, S., Tanaka, M., Vinik, A. I., & Wong, D.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Eastern Virginia Medical School (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chari, Suresh T.
  • Ahlquist, David A.
  • Canto, Marcia
  • Klimstra, David S.
  • Tanaka, Masao
Venue
Pancreas
Published
2015-07
Volume
44
Issue
5
Pages
693-712
ISSN
0885-3177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2064141899
Cited by
295
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 31 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
14.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Pancreas (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P50CA102701, R01CA168712, R01CA177857)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Pancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Keywords
pancreatic cancer, early detection, biomarkers, pancreatic imaging, familial pancreatic cancer, cancer survival, interdisciplinary collaboration, research gaps
MeSH terms
Biopsy, Congresses as Topic, Cooperative Behavior, Diagnostic Imaging, Diffusion of Innovation, Humans, International Cooperation, Pancreatic Neoplasms, Predictive Value of Tests, Prognosis, Biomarkers, Tumor, Survival Analysis, Carcinoma, Pancreatic Ductal, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Interdisciplinary Communication, Biomedical Research, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review